Burks v. United States

Burks v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 28, 1977
Decided June 14, 1978
Full case nameDavid Wayne Burks, Petitioner, v. United States
Citations437 U.S. 1 (more)
98 S. Ct. 2141; 57 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 3
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Burks, 547 F.2d 968 (6th Cir. 1976); cert. granted, 431 U.S. 964 (1977).
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityBurger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens
Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court decision[1] that clarified both the scope of the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the limits of an appellate court's discretion to fashion a remedy under section 2106 of Title 28 to the United States Code.[2] It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence[3] to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense.[4][5] Notwithstanding the power that appellate courts have under section 2106 to "remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances,"[2] a court that reverses a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence may not allow the lower court a choice on remand between acquitting the defendant and ordering a new trial. The "only 'just' remedy" in this situation, the Court held, is to order an acquittal.[6]

  1. ^ Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ a b 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
  3. ^ Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 9781567315530., the failure of a plaintiff or prosecutor to present enough convincing evidence to support their case.
  4. ^ Double Jeopardy: What Constitutes the Same Offense, Findlaw (last visited June 3, 2018).
  5. ^ John H. Draper IV, Constitutional Law—Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Resentencing After Sentence Reversed on Procedural Grounds-Lockhart v. Nelson, 109 S. Ct. 285 (1988), 23 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 882, 884 (1989).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference :5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).